Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Question, what percentage do The Greens need to reach to get one more MP?
-
Hard News: Last Words, in reply to hamishm,
I think that the Greens should get everyone’s party vote.
That would be amusing. Greens with 100% party vote and no electorates - we'd have something like 200 MPs with that.
-
Hard News: Last Words, in reply to Russell Brown,
I’ll vote how I always vote :-)
Yeah and I think interestingly that's probably the way it will be for most people.
Somehow despite actually having policies to argue about and having some truly awful candidates to be horrified at (looks at ACT) - I think most folks will vote the way they've always voted.
I think that says something important but I'm not sure what.
-
Hard News: Last Words, in reply to Russell Brown,
pissed-offness with how this National government acts
*
Which is fine for determining what you won't vote for.
But still leaves what you will vote for confused, well maybe not for you, but certainly for me.
* Yet another example of National using gut-feeling and what it knows to determine policy, sometimes in the face of evidence to the complete contrary.
-
So I happen to be voting in Phil Goff's electorate. Previously I've voted Labour, because in the end I felt their version of centrist fitted most closely to my own.
But like many (apparently) I am utterly disillusioned with the Labour MPs. There are some good ones, near the bottom of their list. But the MPs most likely to get in are a dreary lot, wedded to a brand of politics that is about power not statesmanship.
Oddly for me it's the Green MPs that have made the strongest positive impression on me. That said you don't have to go far down their list to find medication level wackos. And the Greens are still wedded to ideology over evidence. They have some excellent policy but they have some completely loony policy as well.
Unlike most (apparently), I find the National policies and MPs to be heavily focussed on making the rich richer and to hell with what that does to the country or anyone else. A politics of selfishness that works because it convinces the middle that they too will benefit (because they could be rich too). Frankly I don't trust English, Key and Joyce, but that's just my hatred of fat men in suits.
So based on the MPs on show I'd vote Green.
But based on the policies I'd vote Labour and hope the Greens got enough influence to get their good policies through.
What I find puzzling on an emotional level is that the campaign has made me less decided. Don't get me wrong Nationals campaign has made me more certain they are in it for the rich, and some of them even believe that will be good for the country. But the Labour campaign has left me confused about my feelings for them and the Greens have, by saying sensible things, left me asking questions about them as well.
-
Hard News: A week being a long time in politics, in reply to BenWilson,
If 10 guys who are all mates
Establish 10 companies in New Zealand. Each company is a separate entity. Each company has a board of directors who happen to all be the same people. The companies have zero assets. Each company borrows money from an overseas investor to buy shares in Genesis Energy. The overseas investor is the same for each company.
-
Capture: Walk across the rooftops., in reply to Russell Brown,
parents’ photo albums
My father took great photos but most of them were at the nudist club ...
-
Hard News: A week being a long time in politics, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
And, quite frankly, do think “publish and damn the consequences” is a big part of what’s wrong with tabloid media culture in the UK?
ooo goody can we also have a slippery slope argument as well.
It's a frigging meeting between two politicians that was staged event from go to whoa. They then said some stupid shit without making certain the mics were off or here's a thought going somewhere private.
How it isn't a proper subject for the public is beyond me but I'm sure you can come up with another slippery slope argument or a sneer about mere posters not being people with real jobs in the media.
Sure it would have cost money to defend and it would have cost brownie points with the man who is clearly going to be the next PM of NZ - but frankly we used to have a media willing to take that kind of punt for the public interest.
-
Hard News: A week being a long time in politics, in reply to BenWilson,
by someone just hardening up and posting it
That would be an editor with a spine would it?
-
Hard News: A week being a long time in politics, in reply to hamishm,
limit overseas shareholders to 10%
No they will limit individual shareholder to 10%.
The logic being that each 9.99% shareholder will be independent of the other shareholders
as opposed to being dummy companies with shared directors and the same financial backing
no that would never happen ...